-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom
- Thread starter emigre
- Start date
- Views 100,233
- Replies 1,214
- Likes 5
Hate to bump this thread again, but there are two things that I'm kind of wondering about now...
1) the recent habit of UK government to buy ads in local newspapers that are disguised as news articles, and that highlight a handful of companies that are doing great despite of brexit.
On the surface, it reeks of cheap propaganda. It's as if I would pay someone to say the following :
But that's the thing : because of the disclaimer, the whole ad undermines itself and achieves an opposite goal. If brexit's do great why don't the newspapers do their own stories on it? They were largely in favor of it to begin with, so why not bring their own stories rather than act like a capitalist version of communism (1)?
And then there's the 'despite of brexit' part. Granted, I've heard about it through channels that are critical of it to begin with, but the tone isn't 'brexit is great because...' but a 'we've managed despite the hurdles'.
The cynical me likes to believe that brexit is such a total train wreck that not only have the newspapers abandoned all hope to say something positive but even the government is reaching for straws to prevent being boo-ed out of work so they're covertly saying 'okay there's no advantage at all... But it's doable'.
...but I'm not sure on this. As my parody quote indicates : this is just drawing attention to the problem. How is this a better strategy than quietly hoping it'll get better? At the very least there's the 'why's my tax player's money being used for this?' criticism (not mine, but my sources are obviously from the UK), so there's that... But what possible advantage could it have? Quiet the dumber UK residents?
Unfortunately, the second thing is of a larger scale. And is even more absurd...
2) the northern Ireland situation (or protocol, so you will).
This whole thing has always sounded like a'trying to get your cake and eat it to ' situation (which I can almost hear Johnson say, really). More specifically ' we want to leave the single market but don't want to have a real border with countries that use it '.
On one hand, there's the UK internal laws regarding northern Ireland. That good Friday agreement thingy. Nobody wants to mess with it, although the DUP (local political party) is opposed, if I understand things correctly. That whole' leave the single market 'was necessary because it was pushed for (critics claim that it was never what people had in mind when voting to leave, but on the other hand :' brexit is brexit '). So it took the whole transitional period to come up with a way out of this dilemma.
The solution? Have the border on the Irish sea instead. So customs checks between northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Workable, not in breach of agreements and even that villainous EU was kind enough to give a grace period on top of the earlier transition period because... Well... There wasn't transitioning much in that period and the UK was too stubborn to accept extensions (I have no idea how this is different aside the name, but that's a discussion I won't follow).
Of course that DUP wasn't happy, which I can really understand. I mean... A border within the UK? They might just as well rejoin Ireland then.
But ey... You can't please everyone, right?
But again that 'have your cake and eat it' situation : earlier on Britain had proposed legislation against their own deal on this. Perhaps to cater more to the DUP than carrying about international treaties? Either way... That got shot down before it got anywhere, so...
Wait... No. Sorry. Back up : remember that I said the EU kindly gave a grace period? That means not all goods are currently taxed or checked as was intended by the deal. Just a minimum, to minimize disruption. Of course there IS disruption, don't get me wrong. That's just what you get when you want different trade laws from your neighbors. But they're not as much. I'd call it a transitional period but the UK government doesn't like that term.
But now the UK has decided to extend that grace period because there are disruptions. And potentially drop all the checks.
Erm... Gee. It's kind of hard not to get pedantic about this, but someone needs to look up the definition of 'a deal'. The EU allowed for the grace period, not the UK. The UK can decide to NEGOTIATE an extension with the EU but not change the terms on their own. Doing that would be - and frankly : is - a breach of international law.
I'll admit that that 'and potentially drop all the checks' is really just the DUP spokesman talking. Since they rather tore up the good Friday agreement, I can see their opinion... But from my point of view they got overruled by the UK government. Yes, they've got the right to disagree, no they shouldn't make public statements like this.
Ahem... Back on - topic: that illegal extension isn't just damaging for any future deals with other countries your going to make ('so... Why should we sign a trade deal with you if you' re just going to alter parts of it in a couple months without consultation? '). In the most absurd way possible, the timing couldn't be worse.
See... That trade deal with the EU? While finalized, it hasn't been put into law yet (ratified' s the fancy word for it). Back when it was signed, translations still had to be done, copies sent out to all the EU leaders and potential questions needed to be asked. I'd say 'similar to in the uk', but I've heard Johnson didn't want any of that process.
That has now been done, and voting to agree with the UK on the deal is set to take place in...
Johnson : haai guys! Don't mind me... We're just extending your grace period, mmkay?
So... What the hell is this? The end of last year was like a tense car race
(sports commenter voice) 'is it going to be a deal? Is it a no - deal? Still a deal? No deal? A deal is getting more likely! No deal is gaining traction...a deal is getting second base. Will he make it? No deal is flanking on the right! But oooh! A deal is made right on the Christmas finish line!!!'
What was the point of even attempting to strike a deal if you can't even commit to the basics?
I get that Boris doesn't want to take responsibility for a no deal brexit, but perhaps he should try fucking steer AWAY from it instead of chasing it head first.
(1): no, it's never thought I'd say something like that ever, but that's what it am mounts to : 'we' ll run all the government stories provided we're payed for them. We're just not going to pretend it's an article, that's all '.
1) the recent habit of UK government to buy ads in local newspapers that are disguised as news articles, and that highlight a handful of companies that are doing great despite of brexit.
On the surface, it reeks of cheap propaganda. It's as if I would pay someone to say the following :
someguy said:Taleweaver is always right on whatever he says!!!
(this post is sponsored by Taleweaver)
But that's the thing : because of the disclaimer, the whole ad undermines itself and achieves an opposite goal. If brexit's do great why don't the newspapers do their own stories on it? They were largely in favor of it to begin with, so why not bring their own stories rather than act like a capitalist version of communism (1)?
And then there's the 'despite of brexit' part. Granted, I've heard about it through channels that are critical of it to begin with, but the tone isn't 'brexit is great because...' but a 'we've managed despite the hurdles'.
The cynical me likes to believe that brexit is such a total train wreck that not only have the newspapers abandoned all hope to say something positive but even the government is reaching for straws to prevent being boo-ed out of work so they're covertly saying 'okay there's no advantage at all... But it's doable'.
...but I'm not sure on this. As my parody quote indicates : this is just drawing attention to the problem. How is this a better strategy than quietly hoping it'll get better? At the very least there's the 'why's my tax player's money being used for this?' criticism (not mine, but my sources are obviously from the UK), so there's that... But what possible advantage could it have? Quiet the dumber UK residents?
Unfortunately, the second thing is of a larger scale. And is even more absurd...
2) the northern Ireland situation (or protocol, so you will).
This whole thing has always sounded like a'trying to get your cake and eat it to ' situation (which I can almost hear Johnson say, really). More specifically ' we want to leave the single market but don't want to have a real border with countries that use it '.
On one hand, there's the UK internal laws regarding northern Ireland. That good Friday agreement thingy. Nobody wants to mess with it, although the DUP (local political party) is opposed, if I understand things correctly. That whole' leave the single market 'was necessary because it was pushed for (critics claim that it was never what people had in mind when voting to leave, but on the other hand :' brexit is brexit '). So it took the whole transitional period to come up with a way out of this dilemma.
The solution? Have the border on the Irish sea instead. So customs checks between northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Workable, not in breach of agreements and even that villainous EU was kind enough to give a grace period on top of the earlier transition period because... Well... There wasn't transitioning much in that period and the UK was too stubborn to accept extensions (I have no idea how this is different aside the name, but that's a discussion I won't follow).
Of course that DUP wasn't happy, which I can really understand. I mean... A border within the UK? They might just as well rejoin Ireland then.
But ey... You can't please everyone, right?
But again that 'have your cake and eat it' situation : earlier on Britain had proposed legislation against their own deal on this. Perhaps to cater more to the DUP than carrying about international treaties? Either way... That got shot down before it got anywhere, so...
Wait... No. Sorry. Back up : remember that I said the EU kindly gave a grace period? That means not all goods are currently taxed or checked as was intended by the deal. Just a minimum, to minimize disruption. Of course there IS disruption, don't get me wrong. That's just what you get when you want different trade laws from your neighbors. But they're not as much. I'd call it a transitional period but the UK government doesn't like that term.
But now the UK has decided to extend that grace period because there are disruptions. And potentially drop all the checks.
Erm... Gee. It's kind of hard not to get pedantic about this, but someone needs to look up the definition of 'a deal'. The EU allowed for the grace period, not the UK. The UK can decide to NEGOTIATE an extension with the EU but not change the terms on their own. Doing that would be - and frankly : is - a breach of international law.
I'll admit that that 'and potentially drop all the checks' is really just the DUP spokesman talking. Since they rather tore up the good Friday agreement, I can see their opinion... But from my point of view they got overruled by the UK government. Yes, they've got the right to disagree, no they shouldn't make public statements like this.
Ahem... Back on - topic: that illegal extension isn't just damaging for any future deals with other countries your going to make ('so... Why should we sign a trade deal with you if you' re just going to alter parts of it in a couple months without consultation? '). In the most absurd way possible, the timing couldn't be worse.
See... That trade deal with the EU? While finalized, it hasn't been put into law yet (ratified' s the fancy word for it). Back when it was signed, translations still had to be done, copies sent out to all the EU leaders and potential questions needed to be asked. I'd say 'similar to in the uk', but I've heard Johnson didn't want any of that process.
That has now been done, and voting to agree with the UK on the deal is set to take place in...
Johnson : haai guys! Don't mind me... We're just extending your grace period, mmkay?
So... What the hell is this? The end of last year was like a tense car race
(sports commenter voice) 'is it going to be a deal? Is it a no - deal? Still a deal? No deal? A deal is getting more likely! No deal is gaining traction...a deal is getting second base. Will he make it? No deal is flanking on the right! But oooh! A deal is made right on the Christmas finish line!!!
' What was the point of even attempting to strike a deal if you can't even commit to the basics?
I get that Boris doesn't want to take responsibility for a no deal brexit, but perhaps he should try fucking steer AWAY from it instead of chasing it head first.
(1): no, it's never thought I'd say something like that ever, but that's what it am mounts to : 'we' ll run all the government stories provided we're payed for them. We're just not going to pretend it's an article, that's all '.
Unfortunately, the second thing is of a larger scale. And is even more absurd...
2) the northern Ireland situation (or protocol, so you will).
This whole thing has always sounded like a'trying to get your cake and eat it to ' situation (which I can almost hear Johnson say, really). More specifically ' we want to leave the single market but don't want to have a real border with countries that use it '.
On one hand, there's the UK internal laws regarding northern Ireland. That good Friday agreement thingy. Nobody wants to mess with it, although the DUP (local political party) is opposed, if I understand things correctly. That whole' leave the single market 'was necessary because it was pushed for (critics claim that it was never what people had in mind when voting to leave, but on the other hand :' brexit is brexit '). So it took the whole transitional period to come up with a way out of this dilemma.
The solution? Have the border on the Irish sea instead. So customs checks between northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Workable, not in breach of agreements and even that villainous EU was kind enough to give a grace period on top of the earlier transition period because... Well... There wasn't transitioning much in that period and the UK was too stubborn to accept extensions (I have no idea how this is different aside the name, but that's a discussion I won't follow).
Of course that DUP wasn't happy, which I can really understand. I mean... A border within the UK? They might just as well rejoin Ireland then.
But ey... You can't please everyone, right?
The problem is if we have a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland the IRA will likely start fighting again and the unionists are against the border on the Irish sea solution and may start fighting again in future so I think the government is screwed either way and I think another civil war in Northern Ireland is almost inevitable.
Here's an article that talks about it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56276653
Not to sound pedantic, but I know all that.
The IRA and the DUP are diametrically opposed to each other's goals. The former want a united Ireland, the latter wants Northern Ireland to be part of the UK. The uneasy truce was always a "okay, so there's a border, but it doesn't mean anything". Not to brag, but that's a solid example of a benefit of the UK being in the single market (as well as Ireland). What I don't understand is why the UK left that in the first place. Albeit partially, as N.I. is currently still in it. It was never part of the 2016 brexit campaign...rather the opposite.
The article already highlighted what I somewhat presumed: the unionists don't want to feel left out. They rather trade more easily with the UK mainland than with Ireland and the rest of the EU, basically. And unless I'm mistaken, that leaves three options, each with one winner and a loser.
1) the UK cancels a part of their brexit plan and rejoins the single market. The whole Irish sea border evaporates and things go back to before. Winner: DUP. Loser: UK government (though again: who really is against this, and why? Is it really that fun to fill in paperwork and pay tariffs?)
2) the status quo: that single market border remains as it is. Winner: UK government (they literally have to do nothing). Loser: DUP (see also: article).
3) the annexation of Northern ireland by Ireland. Winner: IRA. Loser: both DUP and UK government.
Now before you dismiss the last option, hear me out, mkay? Johnson clearly needs support from the DUP to keep in power. At the same time, he cannot give in without either declaring war with the EU or a civil war on their border (or even both...I have no idea how this doomsday scenario will play out). But meanwhile the EU grows pretty tired of these shenanigans. They don't want to get involved in internal politics, but they certainly care about the deal being altered by the UK before it's even put into fucking law. So when the tension on that internal border continues to rise because both parties are trying to secure the goal the other doesn't want, the third option is a pressure effort that should really be on the table for discussion.
Does the EU want Northern Ireland? Of course not. Heck, even Ireland perhaps doesn't want it(1) (the IRA nothwithstanding, obviously). But it solves the problem far more permanent than all this posturing. And not just that: I sort of feel like the UK government is playing some kind of game on the assumption that the worst that can happen to them is a status quo (the "oh, well at least we tried" option). Losing part of their territory would hit some sense in the government: there is actually something at stake in this game. And there is a "you lose" option. I'm sure it'll help them REALLY taking their actions in consideration(2).
And speaking as the devil's advocate: the UK tried this "loaded gun on the table" technique agains the EU. The problem was that they had a proverbially unloaded gun. The EU has the capacity and influence for this. All it takes them is some motivation, which I'm sure the IRA would be glad to provide if the DUP and BoJo keep bickering over this situation as they currently do...
(1): I'm not familiar with how the Northern Ireland situation started in the first place.
(2): last I hear there were still hundreds if not thousands of border patrol jobs left unfilled. If it was a rush job, I'd sympathise with the government's screwup. This isn't a rush job.
D
Deleted User
Guest
Yeah, if I were in Ireland, I'd be all for unification. UK has zero business in "North" Ireland. Like Gibraltar. They export a bunch of their own population, bs catches on, look up most evil empire on youtube - the concensus is clear. UK is asshoe.
...and just now I read an article that polling shows that there's a large spike in Wales citizens wants independance. Still a minority, but it rose from like 10ish percent to 40 in a couple years.
And before you pull out polls that showcase the majority of Welshmen voted leave: I'm not talking about brexit. I'm talking about Wales wanting to separate from the UK.
I just don't understand it anymore. I mean...I followed Scotland and Ireland a bit in this part, and occasionally picked up a few tidbits on Gibraltar (who apparently played their hand so that they're now CLOSER to the EU than before the brexit
), but Wales? Fuck...I can barely point them out on the map. Aren't they independent enough right now?
Seriously: keep your shit together, guys. If this keeps up, you've got to rename the country to "regular K".
And before you pull out polls that showcase the majority of Welshmen voted leave: I'm not talking about brexit. I'm talking about Wales wanting to separate from the UK.
I just don't understand it anymore. I mean...I followed Scotland and Ireland a bit in this part, and occasionally picked up a few tidbits on Gibraltar (who apparently played their hand so that they're now CLOSER to the EU than before the brexit
), but Wales? Fuck...I can barely point them out on the map. Aren't they independent enough right now?Seriously: keep your shit together, guys. If this keeps up, you've got to rename the country to "regular K".
D
Deleted User
Guest
some are just patriotic men and women who have a sense of pride and want their own borders back. Being mostly Irish w/ grandparents who literally came to the US as endentured servants ("slave-lite" according to historians but family stories are pretty ugly - but the Brits of today had nothing to do w/ it, however it's never too late to right a wrong or at least admit they were wrong in how they treated my people) its amazing how they get a total free pass - the Spanish too - starters of the trasatlantic slave trade. I don't feel owed anything because of what happened in the past, but I do think the issue of Gibralter and Ireland especially is a no brainer. I would never use violence, and I hope discussions stay civil tho it may be too late.
did you see the latest polls ?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19152152.scottish-independence-no-takes-lead-latest-polls/
No, sorry. Thanks for sharing.
But... Without sounding cynical : has that number gone up or down specifically in, say, a year ago?
I'm not sure what it is, but it's as if every poll with two extreme differences seem to split roughly down the middle lately ('hey guys... New poll : should we cut off our left hand and say it goodbye or not? 52% say we remain, 46% say sever and 2% is undecided).
D
Deleted User
Guest
Nationalism has been turned into a dirty word ever since Hitler. But he was a Nationalist Socialist - they differ greatly from basic Nationalism. Yes, some extremist elements find their way into them but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it either (not saying anyone was..)
People are feeling like their cultures are under attack, namely any white person who isn't a Zionist. These Zionists meet together and push agendas about multiculturalism, which itself isn't bad, and diversity, again not bad - but never in Israel. It's very confusing to me that they are allowed to keep all their traditions in place and allow only (not trying to make this about Judiasm as the two are very different) Jewish (usually Zionists) entry to their country.
People love their traditions, and I think the data reflects this. Change is happening too fast, and it's being forced down many throats before they can react or 'digest' the ideas.
Before anyone attacks me, spiritually I believe we are all brothers and sisters - but traditions, namely those that don't hurt anyone else, are unjustly being attacked.
Curious - do the scots want to remain w/ the EU? or are they, like the British, wanting their own country back rather than part of a globalist bloc?
People are feeling like their cultures are under attack, namely any white person who isn't a Zionist. These Zionists meet together and push agendas about multiculturalism, which itself isn't bad, and diversity, again not bad - but never in Israel. It's very confusing to me that they are allowed to keep all their traditions in place and allow only (not trying to make this about Judiasm as the two are very different) Jewish (usually Zionists) entry to their country.
People love their traditions, and I think the data reflects this. Change is happening too fast, and it's being forced down many throats before they can react or 'digest' the ideas.
Before anyone attacks me, spiritually I believe we are all brothers and sisters - but traditions, namely those that don't hurt anyone else, are unjustly being attacked.
Curious - do the scots want to remain w/ the EU? or are they, like the British, wanting their own country back rather than part of a globalist bloc?
Depends on when you ask them.
The rest of your analysis is a tad erratic, but hey as long as it doesnt hurt anyone, right?
Here, read this, imho:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_nationalism_in_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism_in_the_Middle_Ages
In some sense, the term was invented, when organizational structures got to the point, where an absolutist ruler could exercise more direct power over local chieftains, who usually scalped tarifs on trading routes. For that a new unifying concept was needed - that became national identity. That then could lead to stateless ethnicities - which suddenly found, that they had a problem. Stating israel as your example of 'look how good they have it' is problematic as well, as they are engaged in a perpetual military conflict over nationality, ethnicity and state borders. That would be a very expensive model to use at world scale.
Also most people that get into the ideology of zionism are either zionists, or right wing extremists using it as an example of "why are they allowed but not we". The answer to that (with all its faults) is basically "because of what happened during WW2, and how the war turned out".
https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/balfour-declaration#:~:text=The area's instability led Britain,of the nation of Israel.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel
Cultural identities 'shifting too fast' is kind of a mute point - first, they do all the time, including for the most trivial causes, its still groups or fractions of the public that decide on taking on those changes - and they never get taken on to the extremes they might be proposed to by a political fraction of the time. 'Fear' in that sense is kind of silly. As much as a cultural identity is an abstract - it usually doesnt change peoples believes, or lives on the ground over night. And when it eventually does, per definition, most people have come to grips with it. They be changing me culture too fast, is a great complaint to make, but the rebuttal then becomes, well, then dont change your culture that fast. And by that I mean, you challenge the aspects of change you dont like politically - but at the same time, you dont get to declare 'what speed is the right speed for change' because thats also no how it should work. The entire thing develops as a common agreement over time.
On the right wing front in the US currently its often associated with the fear of loosing 'racial majority' in a political sense - so if you discuss that in an abstract, you might cover up a few sentiments as well... Also if you reflect back on the role of religion or race for the establishment of the nationalist concept... Then you've learned something as well.
The rest of your analysis is a tad erratic, but hey as long as it doesnt hurt anyone, right?
Here, read this, imho:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_nationalism_in_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism_in_the_Middle_Ages
In some sense, the term was invented, when organizational structures got to the point, where an absolutist ruler could exercise more direct power over local chieftains, who usually scalped tarifs on trading routes.
For that a new unifying concept was needed - that became national identity. That then could lead to stateless ethnicities - which suddenly found, that they had a problem. Stating israel as your example of 'look how good they have it' is problematic as well, as they are engaged in a perpetual military conflict over nationality, ethnicity and state borders. That would be a very expensive model to use at world scale. Also most people that get into the ideology of zionism are either zionists, or right wing extremists using it as an example of "why are they allowed but not we". The answer to that (with all its faults) is basically "because of what happened during WW2, and how the war turned out".
https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/balfour-declaration#:~:text=The area's instability led Britain,of the nation of Israel.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel
Cultural identities 'shifting too fast' is kind of a mute point - first, they do all the time, including for the most trivial causes, its still groups or fractions of the public that decide on taking on those changes - and they never get taken on to the extremes they might be proposed to by a political fraction of the time. 'Fear' in that sense is kind of silly. As much as a cultural identity is an abstract - it usually doesnt change peoples believes, or lives on the ground over night. And when it eventually does, per definition, most people have come to grips with it. They be changing me culture too fast, is a great complaint to make, but the rebuttal then becomes, well, then dont change your culture that fast. And by that I mean, you challenge the aspects of change you dont like politically - but at the same time, you dont get to declare 'what speed is the right speed for change' because thats also no how it should work. The entire thing develops as a common agreement over time.
On the right wing front in the US currently its often associated with the fear of loosing 'racial majority' in a political sense - so if you discuss that in an abstract, you might cover up a few sentiments as well...
Also if you reflect back on the role of religion or race for the establishment of the nationalist concept... Then you've learned something as well.
Last edited by notimp,
Most scots voted remain (62%) back in 2016. While it's not likely to have changed much, it's not as if they can 'just' choose to remain, and certainly not at this point.
First thing that they need to push through is separate from the UK. That won't be easy because the UK obviously doesn't want it, and it's not like everyone in Scotland prefers separating rather than remaining in the UK.
And while hard or impossible, it's still just the first hurdle. Say, hypothetically, that they can pull it off somehow. Then they aren't suddenly a EU member. They can apply and follow the agreements, sure... But then the whole border situation that's currently playing out in Ireland becomes an issue between Scotland and England. The EU probably won't allow countries that refuse to be in the single market, and since the (remainder of the) UK isn't, an actual border with checks and customs need to be applied over the whole border.
So... It sucks to be a EU minded Scottish, but I don't think it's likely they'll gain a membership while England is doing its current course.
Oh, and... I have no idea what the rest of your post is about. I'd ask to clarify, but it seems pretty of topic and I don't really want to know
D
Deleted User
Guest
I never said 'look how good Israel has it' - nothing even close. Just that Zionist groups push multiculturalism and diversity everywhere but their own home nation. I just find it strange - never been a fan of double standards.
Not sure where I lost you, or why my analysis was 'erratic'. I'm an old armchair historian, that's why I don't usually get into these kind of topics on video game websites. But I'd rather be erratic and weird than today's version of normal.
I do not fear these people in the slightest. I will never bend my principles or break my moral character to fit in w/ the 'woke' crowd.
I certainly do get to decide what speed my family changes to a large extent, and have been very lucky. We live in a place we mostly don't have to deal w/ these issues, but it's my grand-kids I worry about more than anything. I grew up in a very liberal state + 8 years college there, perhaps I'll just leave it at that.
Appreciate your responses. Taleweaver, you can ignore the previous part of this message, but great info and perspective in regards to the situation in the UK w/ the Scots, Whales, North Ire., etc. Take care.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-21-2021/vOAsjR.gif
Not sure where I lost you, or why my analysis was 'erratic'. I'm an old armchair historian, that's why I don't usually get into these kind of topics on video game websites. But I'd rather be erratic and weird than today's version of normal.
I do not fear these people in the slightest. I will never bend my principles or break my moral character to fit in w/ the 'woke' crowd.
I certainly do get to decide what speed my family changes to a large extent, and have been very lucky. We live in a place we mostly don't have to deal w/ these issues, but it's my grand-kids I worry about more than anything. I grew up in a very liberal state + 8 years college there, perhaps I'll just leave it at that.
Appreciate your responses. Taleweaver, you can ignore the previous part of this message, but great info and perspective in regards to the situation in the UK w/ the Scots, Whales, North Ire., etc. Take care.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-21-2021/vOAsjR.gif
D
Deleted User
Guest
Just turned 40 too. You find out very fast, as im sure you have in past years, who your actual friends are. My bday without risking doxing myself as people hate traditionalists who won't date women w/ kool aid hair i.e. w/ a passion - but we're a few days apart.
Congrats on the kid. I hope you and your girlfriend can turn into a family, and that good stuff ('nuclear family' the american left hates so much).
Ugh...seems like the whole North Ireland situation is getting worse by the week. Now I hear that the riots aren't really reported in English newspapers, but...I really hope this is just an exaggeration, or that papers missed the deadline or something. But it would seem very unwise to pretend everything's okay, when...well...this shit happens:
(source)
So...things aren't going swimmingly. Thus far, I was admittedly more amused than serious in the whole situation (59 pages but I'm still waiting on the first concrete benefit of brexit). But it turns worse once violence starts erupting.
For those not paying attention: how did this all happen? Chronologically, the first part is giving the border between Ireland (EU) and Northern Ireland (UK) hardly any mention. There were unrests before, but the peace process came through well over a decade ago with that "Good Friday agreement" I've mentioned some times (and that my youtube sources keep banging on about). The way I get it, an important part of it is that there'd be no real border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. A local Northern Ireland political party (DUP) always...erm...at best condoned it, but 'abstained' or 'dismissed' is probably better (or "downright hated", if you don't pretend to keep a neutral stance).
I'll admit I had no idea it was due to the EU that the situation Ireland/Northern Ireland was actually peaceful, but it's kind of proving itself now. Why? Because both Ireland and the UK were in the single market...basically a set of standards that both countries agreed upon, which sort of makes custom checks/a hard border unneeded.
The most absurd part on this: IT WAS NEVER A REQUIREMENT TO LEAVE THE SINGLE MARKET TO LEAVE THE EU! Rather the contrary: the shining examples that were promised the voting brexit-population included countries like Norway and Switzerland, which aren't full EU members but part of this single market. But ey...somewhere between 2016 and 2020, the UK decided that they didn't want to follow EU membership rules anymore, and don't want to follow the common trade rules of countries not in the EU either. So what perhaps started as a non-issue(1) actually became a full fledged issue under Johnson.
...and then we got to a situation that I can't but describe as anything but "a complete and total lie" by Johnson. See, in order to solve the situation, the UK government sought and got an agreement with the EU that Northern Ireland remained in the EU, and that the hard border was to be set in the Irish sea. But at the same time, he told the public that there would never be a border in the Irish sea.
Granted: youtube commenters can easily pull up soundbites that predate the actual situation (meaning: perhaps Boris didn't lie. He can also be a moron, or dangerously ill-informed. I'll leave it to others to decide what's worse).
Then comes the DUP. Though a supporting part of the UK government - and thus should have voiced concerns BEFORE co-signing this deal - the DUP now realises that they've pretty much helped paving the way to a reunited Ireland (making themselves obsolete in the process). So...they're obviously pissed(2). And they're making strong statements on the new sea border, indirectly or even directly attacking the good friday agreement.
In case the way I'm telling you isn't clear: I'm blaming the DUP for this mess. They should keep these sorts of fights indoors with Boris, and do them beforehand. Backtracking hurts the UK reputation(3), divides an area and implicitly gives an agreement for these sorts of guerrilla tactics.
I'm also not sure what the UK is about to do now. Oh, sure: rejoining the single market would be an obvious step. In theory it shouldn't piss off brexit voters. It would open up trade relations, lower tensions and probably reduce the amount of paperwork (though I can't really say by how much).
Of course, the "in theory" probably isn't going to work in practice, because they've already sold their audience the single market as being on the EU's leash or something similar. So...I'd say that's off the table, if the only thing still left on the table wasn't worse for them: the reunification of Ireland.
I admit I'm kind of morbidly curious how things would've played out if Trump got a second term. In theory Trump should support brexit, so it'd be the US and the UK versus the EU. So...in that case(4), it'd be more clear that the UK would get what it wanted...assuming they could bloody make up WHAT they want in the first place (no, not the hollow "brexit" idea that's molded differently depending on whom you ask. What regulations, rules, trade agreements or things like that). But...that didn't happen. Biden's president and he made it very clear he's with Ireland (and thus the EU) all the way. So the UK's government is more in a corner than they ever were...
(1): this is debatable, of course. Northern Ireland itself voted to remain in the EU, and of course there's always some that want to reunite Ireland and use everything as an excuse for that agenda.
(2): assuming you consider it obvious that you sign a deal you regret immediately afterward.
(3): or whatever's still left of that
(4): well...that's presuming US congress somehow lost the entire Irishing lobbying department in the process, but if we're being hypothetical, we might as well go all the way
(source)
So...things aren't going swimmingly. Thus far, I was admittedly more amused than serious in the whole situation (59 pages but I'm still waiting on the first concrete benefit of brexit). But it turns worse once violence starts erupting.
For those not paying attention: how did this all happen? Chronologically, the first part is giving the border between Ireland (EU) and Northern Ireland (UK) hardly any mention. There were unrests before, but the peace process came through well over a decade ago with that "Good Friday agreement" I've mentioned some times (and that my youtube sources keep banging on about). The way I get it, an important part of it is that there'd be no real border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. A local Northern Ireland political party (DUP) always...erm...at best condoned it, but 'abstained' or 'dismissed' is probably better (or "downright hated", if you don't pretend to keep a neutral stance).
I'll admit I had no idea it was due to the EU that the situation Ireland/Northern Ireland was actually peaceful, but it's kind of proving itself now. Why? Because both Ireland and the UK were in the single market...basically a set of standards that both countries agreed upon, which sort of makes custom checks/a hard border unneeded.
The most absurd part on this: IT WAS NEVER A REQUIREMENT TO LEAVE THE SINGLE MARKET TO LEAVE THE EU! Rather the contrary: the shining examples that were promised the voting brexit-population included countries like Norway and Switzerland, which aren't full EU members but part of this single market. But ey...somewhere between 2016 and 2020, the UK decided that they didn't want to follow EU membership rules anymore, and don't want to follow the common trade rules of countries not in the EU either. So what perhaps started as a non-issue(1) actually became a full fledged issue under Johnson.
...and then we got to a situation that I can't but describe as anything but "a complete and total lie" by Johnson. See, in order to solve the situation, the UK government sought and got an agreement with the EU that Northern Ireland remained in the EU, and that the hard border was to be set in the Irish sea. But at the same time, he told the public that there would never be a border in the Irish sea.
Granted: youtube commenters can easily pull up soundbites that predate the actual situation (meaning: perhaps Boris didn't lie. He can also be a moron, or dangerously ill-informed. I'll leave it to others to decide what's worse).
Then comes the DUP. Though a supporting part of the UK government - and thus should have voiced concerns BEFORE co-signing this deal - the DUP now realises that they've pretty much helped paving the way to a reunited Ireland (making themselves obsolete in the process). So...they're obviously pissed(2). And they're making strong statements on the new sea border, indirectly or even directly attacking the good friday agreement.
In case the way I'm telling you isn't clear: I'm blaming the DUP for this mess. They should keep these sorts of fights indoors with Boris, and do them beforehand. Backtracking hurts the UK reputation(3), divides an area and implicitly gives an agreement for these sorts of guerrilla tactics.
I'm also not sure what the UK is about to do now. Oh, sure: rejoining the single market would be an obvious step. In theory it shouldn't piss off brexit voters. It would open up trade relations, lower tensions and probably reduce the amount of paperwork (though I can't really say by how much).
Of course, the "in theory" probably isn't going to work in practice, because they've already sold their audience the single market as being on the EU's leash or something similar. So...I'd say that's off the table, if the only thing still left on the table wasn't worse for them: the reunification of Ireland.
I admit I'm kind of morbidly curious how things would've played out if Trump got a second term. In theory Trump should support brexit, so it'd be the US and the UK versus the EU. So...in that case(4), it'd be more clear that the UK would get what it wanted...assuming they could bloody make up WHAT they want in the first place (no, not the hollow "brexit" idea that's molded differently depending on whom you ask. What regulations, rules, trade agreements or things like that). But...that didn't happen. Biden's president and he made it very clear he's with Ireland (and thus the EU) all the way. So the UK's government is more in a corner than they ever were...
(1): this is debatable, of course. Northern Ireland itself voted to remain in the EU, and of course there's always some that want to reunite Ireland and use everything as an excuse for that agenda.
(2): assuming you consider it obvious that you sign a deal you regret immediately afterward.
(3): or whatever's still left of that
(4): well...that's presuming US congress somehow lost the entire Irishing lobbying department in the process, but if we're being hypothetical, we might as well go all the way
The UK government are pushing a bill through that would allow them to make any protest for any reason an illegal act.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839
This is fine.
Last edited by smf,
D
Deleted User
Guest
89, member: 159384"]The UK government are pushing a bill through that would allow them to make any protest for any reason an illegal act.
I
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839
This is fine.[/QUOTE]
Sounds great. Those who trust the government do not know history.
Okay... I've got to ask : is British media really running the UK instead of the government?
In the last month, my YouTube sources(1) report almost on a daily basis on how traditional media is skewing, misinterpreting or not covering aspects of brexit that might paint it in a negative light.
Figures showing the drop in exports as seriously dropping, the legal action against the UK, the Norwegian fishing agreement failing,... The traditional media seems like a punching bag...or local school paper articles that shouldn't be taken seriously.
In itself, I wouldn't say it's new (I remember James O'Brian reading some article headings of the past about the EU... The EU was depicted as a real of pure evil and bureaucracy (2)). But it has to be asked because now Johnsons the target of an investigation...
...on the finances for his office's wallpaper.
*sigh *
Don't get me wrong : if he used more public money than allowed, I'm not saying he should be left off the hook. But at the same time... Fucking seriously?
When Johnson waved 'his' deal in the end of December as a victory, it wasn't allowed to be scrutinized. Brexit's the biggest economical shift since the second world War, and it's not allowed to be criticized? May's the deals get rejected, but this is a go because Boris was smart enough to squander enough time to basically say 'it's this or nothing'?
I've already talked about how the DUP felt duped () because they basically agreed to what they wouldn't agree to. No call for investigation on whether or not the Irish sea border is legit to begin with? (3) no check on whether leaving the single market was needed to begin with?
Next up : riots in Northern Ireland. I personally blame the dup: threatening to scrap the document that holds the peace in the region tends to do that. But it seems media didn't even bother covering it properly. So... What does it really take to take a good, close look at what Boris really bargained?
... But nooooo. He used 200'000 pounds instead of an annual 30'000 to renovate his fucking office. And THAT is a scandal that has people talking of removing him from office?
Fucking dolts...
(1): that'll be 'afifferent bias' and a guy going by 'Robespierre', mostly
(2): I kind of wonder... How many of those really came from journalist Boris Johnson or EU's UK representative Nigel Farage?
(3): my sources calmly explain that the good Friday agreement isn't jeopardized all by this sea border. But I don't get any coherent argument from the DUP corner
In the last month, my YouTube sources(1) report almost on a daily basis on how traditional media is skewing, misinterpreting or not covering aspects of brexit that might paint it in a negative light.
Figures showing the drop in exports as seriously dropping, the legal action against the UK, the Norwegian fishing agreement failing,... The traditional media seems like a punching bag...or local school paper articles that shouldn't be taken seriously.
In itself, I wouldn't say it's new (I remember James O'Brian reading some article headings of the past about the EU... The EU was depicted as a real of pure evil and bureaucracy (2)). But it has to be asked because now Johnsons the target of an investigation...
...on the finances for his office's wallpaper.
*sigh *
Don't get me wrong : if he used more public money than allowed, I'm not saying he should be left off the hook. But at the same time... Fucking seriously?
When Johnson waved 'his' deal in the end of December as a victory, it wasn't allowed to be scrutinized. Brexit's the biggest economical shift since the second world War, and it's not allowed to be criticized? May's the deals get rejected, but this is a go because Boris was smart enough to squander enough time to basically say 'it's this or nothing'?
I've already talked about how the DUP felt duped (
) because they basically agreed to what they wouldn't agree to. No call for investigation on whether or not the Irish sea border is legit to begin with? (3) no check on whether leaving the single market was needed to begin with? Next up : riots in Northern Ireland. I personally blame the dup: threatening to scrap the document that holds the peace in the region tends to do that. But it seems media didn't even bother covering it properly. So... What does it really take to take a good, close look at what Boris really bargained?
... But nooooo. He used 200'000 pounds instead of an annual 30'000 to renovate his fucking office. And THAT is a scandal that has people talking of removing him from office?
Fucking dolts...
(1): that'll be 'afifferent bias' and a guy going by 'Robespierre', mostly
(2): I kind of wonder... How many of those really came from journalist Boris Johnson or EU's UK representative Nigel Farage?
(3): my sources calmly explain that the good Friday agreement isn't jeopardized all by this sea border. But I don't get any coherent argument from the DUP corner
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@BakerMan, iirc it was about a news article about princess peach showtime using the word "sus" unironically -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
realtimesave:
Nintendo needs to release a new console, switch is getting such shitty little games lately lol it's pathetic -
-
-
